IF you are so bored with the topic at hand, how come there isnt any proof towards your side? I just looked through your posts and didnt see any solid, logical, scientific proof stating your case.

What about irreducible complexity, fossil records, macro vs. micro evolution.
These are three of the biggest problems with evolution and neither you nor any one else has yet addressed them. The fact is, there are no answers from the evolutionists point of view about these questions. They are the gapping holes in the theory.

I can appreciate your point of view, in fact I shared it for a long time. I thought creationists were crazy, but as I looked into it and started really studying it, I started seeing some really big problems with what I believed. I am in pursuit of truth with my life!! The fact is, there are just as many FAITH issues with evolution as there are with creationism....if not more.

I just don't want anyone saying that anyone that believes in intelligent design is an idiot that hasn't looked at the facts. Because I have, and I have concluded that as more true than evolution.

Inteligent Design would be given a fair chance in schools if it had sufficient scientific backing behind it and was able to provide a concrete display of the scientific research principles behind it. As this particular case was handled, forcing teachers to mention a theory without any physical evidence whatsoever goes against the very heart and soul behind science.

The whole point in evidence for creationism is just that though. The evidence IS creation!! If the theory of evolution were wrong, then what else is there?

This is why creationists spend so much time on poking holes in evolution (and there are massive problems to be exposed) because if they can get people actually questioning the mainly taught theory in our schools, then truth might be exposed. WHATEVER that truth is.

Yes, there are holes in evolution. That's not the question or concern. yes Inteligent Design has some valid points. The issue here is:

1. ID is being mentioned as an alternative to students without any prepared material to be taught in schools as an alternative.

2. Religious groups push and pressure for ID being mentioned with the premise that a supreme being is involved AND a miracle of that being's doing has occured in the creation.

I too can see some inteligence as to the order of things and balance in nature. I have no explanation for it, but as a hard physical science you cannot depend on me to believe a supreme being did this or that without some means of tying it to physical evidence or compensating similarities to other concrete backed evidence.

A science that cannot be methodically researched and/or proven/follwed is not a science.

The whole point in evidence for creationism is just that though. The evidence IS creation!! If the theory of evolution were wrong, then what else is there?

This is why creationists spend so much time on poking holes in evolution (and there are massive problems to be exposed) because if they can get people actually questioning the mainly taught theory in our schools, then truth might be exposed. WHATEVER that truth is.

The fact that something is present does not prove that spontaneous creation is true. Using that logic, MAGIC exists.

My problem with this logic is the age old toddler mentality.

toddler says "Why?"

adult says "because."

toddler says "but why?"

adult says "because I said so."

Evolution has its faults and there's no arguing that. The reason its taught is Darwin came about with his theory following the purest scientific method without bias. That is real science.

Going back to one of the comments that a majority of Americans are Christian, I feel very strongly that this is only true for one reason. People that are NOT Christians don't want to risk their position in life by making it known that they don't believe in the whole Christian thing. It's kind of like acceptance thru association. If people know I don't believe in God, they won't accept me for who I am. I for one am sick of the world being dominated by the religious crowd. Simple things like not being able to buy a bottle of Bailey's at 11am on a Sunday morning trip to Meijer does it for me.

As for Creation, ID, and evolution. Each should have it's place in public education. Darwin and Evolution should be in a science class since his theories and research are based on the scientific method. ID and Creation should be included in a philosophy course. Give the students the "facts" or "theories" as they are currently accepted and let the student form his or her own beliefs. Unfortunately this world is full of people that refuse to accept that students should be free to learn from all views and beliefs. Give them the ability to think and decide for themselves. Don't force anything on them, but most of all don't hide it from them either.

Inteligent Design would be given a fair chance in schools if it had sufficient scientific backing behind it and was able to provide a concrete display of the scientific research principles behind it. As this particular case was handled, forcing teachers to mention a theory without any physical evidence whatsoever goes against the very heart and soul behind science.

Science does, and has routinely hypothesized without physical evidence.

Additionally, there are times when science doesn't specificlly prove the existence of an item through observing the specific item, but instead by attempting to measure the hypothesized object's measurable or guestimated/measurable impact on neighboring objects.

e.g. we can't really see "black holes". <-- a gross over simplification but I hope you can catch my drift.

There are some very very inteligent people on both sides of the various arguments, and I'm not afraid to state that they're more inteligent than I.

the point has been made though, that the vastness of information on both sides is so far wide spread, that no single person can really grasp it all at once, let alone truly, and fully attempt to validate it all on their own - thus, they are forced to take at least portions of both arguments on faith.

faith that the person performing the tests, gathering the information, etc, etc, is doing so properly.

science is continuously being revised, and re-written.

So too is as an example, our modern understanding of some of the unquestionabley historically accurate depictions that are portrayed in the bible. (and/or other religious tomes from other religions)

both of which is good, one day we may have a definitive answer one way or the other.

until that time, most of us will make up our minds based on our own faith, impressions and/or research. :dunno:

Going back to one of the comments that a majority of Americans are Christian, I feel very strongly that this is only true for one reason. People that are NOT Christians don't want to risk their position in life by making it known that they don't believe in the whole Christian thing. It's kind of like acceptance thru association. If people know I don't believe in God, they won't accept me for who I am. I for one am sick of the world being dominated by the religious crowd. Simple things like not being able to buy a bottle of Bailey's at 11am on a Sunday morning trip to Meijer does it for me.

As for Creation, ID, and evolution. Each should have it's place in public education. Darwin and Evolution should be in a science class since his theories and research are based on the scientific method. ID and Creation should be included in a philosophy course. Give the students the "facts" or "theories" as they are currently accepted and let the student form his or her own beliefs. Unfortunately this world is full of people that refuse to accept that students should be free to learn from all views and beliefs. Give them the ability to think and decide for themselves. Don't force anything on them, but most of all don't hide it from them either.

I don't believe that in this day and age of individualistic rights, and "me me me" that too many people are too worried about being labelled a non-believer, and/or castigated by society for it - or that the fear of same is the only thing keeping people as self classifying themselves as christains.

I do believe that as our aging baby boomer population starts facing the reality of their aging, the natural curiousity of what's next and what was it all for is starting some of these debates.

it's been an age old question through the millenia - what's the meaning of life, and why are we here. Yes, it's very uncomfortable for some to just accept that it's a cosmic accident, and that life doesnt' have a meaning. some people, I dare say are simply unable to stare that possible reality in the face, else face a break down.

I don't believe that in this day and age of individualistic rights, and "me me me" that too many people are too worried about being labelled a non-believer, and/or castigated by society for it - or that the fear of same is the only thing keeping people as self classifying themselves as christains.

As a small business owner on the side, I can see many instances where conforming to the assumed "popular belief system" is essential to making a business successfull in many areas. A church is a very effective networking tool. But, in the same way, acknowledging publically that you are not a Christian can and does hit your reputation around a small town. People talk. For that reason, I think more people classify themselves as Christians because not doing so would reflect negatively on them based on the assumed accepted normal behavior in society. I wish this was something I could back with facts and figures. Unfortunately this is just my opinion. However, I have witnessed in a business situation on many occassions where believing in God has been brought up by one indivdual and suddenly everyone around them jumps on the bandwagon. I believe some do so out of fear of being labeled as a heathen. Sorry for getting off-topic here...

I dont believe that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe that god created some parts and allowed evolution to let his creations grow.
I dont have any scientific facts for my beliefs because they are mostly based on faith and theory.
I am not a traditional christian by any means, but I do think there is a god. I just think we as humans try to believe that we know what god wants, but since we dont find out until after we die, no one knows for sure.

When I was in high school... we didn't really get into the scientific logic, or methods used to validate the evolutionary theory. Teachers just talked about it's implications.

I don't know if that is true today... but everyone is saying we are taught darwins theory just to learn about the scientific method; then that is complete BS. You can learn about that 10,000 other less contriversial ways.

We don't understand our bodies at even the most minute cellular level... but we don't teach our kids that pieces of atoms can come and go as they please (a big well documented theory in quantum physics) we just say... we don't know.

I think that evolution should be taught but should be presented for what it is, a theory that has not been proven, and in all likelyhood will never be proven as 100% fact, and if there are hole in the theory those should be presented along with it. As for "teaching" intelegent design I don't see the need to go into any more detail that to simply state that there are many other beliefs about the origins of life, some based purely on ancient folk lore, others a combination of folk lore and science.

I think that evolution should be taught but should be presented for what it is, a theory that has not been proven, and in all likelyhood will never be proven as 100% fact, and if there are hole in the theory those should be presented along with it. As for "teaching" intelegent design I don't see the need to go into any more detail that to simply state that there are many other beliefs about the origins of life, some based purely on ancient folk lore, others a combination of folk lore and science.

While good in logic, this doesn't flow with the traditional teaching structure in most schools. This path of teaching falls more under the category of social science rather than physical science. This is why its typically thought down on by science teachers. Now what the people behind the movement should do is try and get origins of life put on the social studies curriculum. You are required to know a certain amount of the Civil War, the American Revolution, etc... why not include the origins of life in regards to beliefs in this area?

Miff and i was watching a show the other night , the shroud of torin which covered jesus , well not really its proven to be about 1300 years to new for that ! I think religion has hurt its self with people like me by creating so many false items they swore was real .

Your claiming evolution is just as bad with false evidence . I dont think so , ya theres holes in the theroy that can not be proven . Thats not the same as making up crap like the relgious side has done to " prove " there point falsly .

When we find cavemen , or ice men that fills in large spots of evolution it pretty much swings my oppinion as to wich theroy is reasonable .

religion requires " faith " wich is another way of saying you must beleave in what is not real or you must agree with that you can never substantiate . I dont have the faith to do that . I see zero prove here yet on evolution i see some facts . A matter of resonable deduction to me .:gman:

I think that evolution should be taught but should be presented for what it is, a theory that has not been proven, and in all likelyhood will never be proven as 100% fact, and if there are hole in the theory those should be presented along with it. As for "teaching" intelegent design I don't see the need to go into any more detail that to simply state that there are many other beliefs about the origins of life, some based purely on ancient folk lore, others a combination of folk lore and science.

Miff and i was watching a show the other night , the shroud of torin which covered jesus , well not really its proven to be about 1300 years to new for that ! I think religion has hurt its self with people like me by creating so many false items they swore was real .

Your claiming evolution is just as bad with false evidence . I dont think so , ya theres holes in the theroy that can not be proven . Thats not the same as making up crap like the relgious side has done to " prove " there point falsly .

When we find cavemen , or ice men that fills in large spots of evolution it pretty much swings my oppinion as to wich theroy is reasonable .

religion requires " faith " wich is another way of saying you must beleave in what is not real or you must agree with that you can never substantiate . I dont have the faith to do that . I see zero prove here yet on evolution i see some facts . A matter of resonable deduction to me .:gman:

See heres the way I look at it all if you put them side by side.

Evolution. Its got the logical approach. The stuff that is there has good scientific theory behind it. And there are still "holes" in the over all theory.

ID. All the stuff thats in there is hearsay. You can put any sort of science applied to it. Its all touchy feely stuff and when you want to look at something on a technical leval, it just doesnt work.

Miff and i was watching a show the other night , the shroud of torin which covered jesus , well not really its proven to be about 1300 years to new for that ! I think religion has hurt its self with people like me by creating so many false items they swore was real .

Your claiming evolution is just as bad with false evidence . I dont think so , ya theres holes in the theroy that can not be proven . Thats not the same as making up crap like the relgious side has done to " prove " there point falsly .

When we find cavemen , or ice men that fills in large spots of evolution it pretty much swings my oppinion as to wich theroy is reasonable .

religion requires " faith " wich is another way of saying you must beleave in what is not real or you must agree with that you can never substantiate . I dont have the faith to do that . I see zero prove here yet on evolution i see some facts . A matter of resonable deduction to me .:gman:

Marv, you need to get more coffee in ya before you start posting about religion in the morning :D

If there was irrefutable, and physical/tangible and undeniable proof of God, would you really have a "choice" in believing?

Much of the religious doctrine regardless of "god" (christain, muslim, etc) centers around man's choice/free will; and that we're too limited to understand god's reasons.

many people have too large of an ego to humble themselves to that possibility.

one of the things that led me down the path towards belief/faith aside from the statistically rediculous odds of it all being "chance" is that I'm equally uncomfortable believing that my thoughts, feelings and emotions are all just a bunch of chemical reactions - or that I'm just a part of the "matrix".